A simple case for intelligent design

[BilliardsBall]

Water boils off into a vapor in the absense of air pressure. Are you going to also postulate that the universe is surrounded by an atmosphere?

So you've not seen water in a container? And you feel laws for this universe also apply in the multiverse? Thus the whole multiverse breaks the Conservation of Law/Energy by EXISTING?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Well, given that our universe is a vacuum, into it. And that process would be both fast and energetic.

But, of course, the whole proposal is more a joke than anything else.

We mock what we do not understand. Intelligence involves using the hypothesis method to see what's true or false.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, you don't get it. I would immediately discount any physicist that started a hypothesis with 'suppose there is water surrounding the observable universe'. That is already so far out there that any reference to the Bible is just beside the point.

It's "out there" to suggest that something/some universe outside the observable universe (whose "edge" is yet to be observed) exists? Are you a solipsist also or simply a "universe only" imagineer?

 

[BilliardsBall]

As before, who are these physicists, and where can I read their papers? Also, if there is a spherical shell of water that envelops the observable universe and is concentric with it, it does not create a gravitational field in the observable universe.

Why do you want to read their papers, since right after requesting their reference, you said, "I know they're wrong ("does not create a field") before I read their papers"?

Is that someone who is closed- or open-minded?

 

[Polymath257]

It's "out there" to suggest that something/some universe outside the observable universe (whose "edge" is yet to be observed) exists? Are you a solipsist also or simply a "universe only" imagineer?

Not at all unreasonable. But that something would most likely be atomic hydrogen and certainly NOT water at any density.

 

[gnostic]

Intelligence involves using the hypothesis method to see what's true or false.

No, that’s only half of the picture.

In science, a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable first.

Falsification determine if the any statement made in “the would be candidate for hypothesis” is capable of being tested.

If it is testable, then it is a hypothesis. If it isn’t, then it isn’t a hypothesis.

(A) Then, a scientist must “explain” WHAT the phenomena he is investigating “is”, HOW does it possibly work. And if he can possibly answer these two questions, then he should try to “predict” or “theorize” WHAT possible application(s) they may have?​

(B) This is followed by giving some predictions, some equations or formulas you expect any future experiment to meet. These predictions and equations/formulas are like baseline for determining possible success or failure of experiments.​

(C) The hypothesis should also include the methodology of you are going to perform the tests or experiments.​

All of this (A, B & C) are part of formulating and documenting the hypothesis. Once, scientist have done that, then he may proceed to the “testing” stage and “analyzing” stage of Scientific Method.

Let for the sake of simplicity, the tests involved “experimentation”. So you set up and perform the experiment, where you would record any observation, measure anything that contributed to hypothesis, and count or quantify what have been observed in the experiment.

Then you would the experiment again, and again, and again. The experiments need to be repeatedly performed as many times as required that you can analyze the test results and data (eg measurements recorded), for a number of reasons:

1. To determine if there are errors or anomalies in the experiments.
2. To determine one or two that are successful or failure are not fluke.
3. And the more experiments or tests done would provide confirmation if the hypothesis is probable or improbable.

If the experiments repeatedly failed because they don’t meet the requirements requirements you specified in the hypothesis, then you would know that your hypothesis has been refuted - the explanations and predictions are wrong. Your hypothesis is not probable. Any failed (or refuted) hypothesis should be discarded.

If, on the other hand, the majority of the experiments meet all the requirements you had specified in the hypothesis, eg the explanation, the predictions, the formulas/equations, etc, then there is a probability that your hypothesis is true and accurate.

This doesn’t mean the hypothesis is now a “scientific theory”. Writing up the hypothesis and performing some experiments, is only the first step in meeting the scientific method requirements.

You would perform more experiments or you would get independent scientist(s) to perform experiments, which would allow you to refine your hypothesis.

Should all goes well so far, then you can submit your documented hypothesis, and all your recorded test results and analysis before the Peer Review, or before the scientific community, to determine the candidacy of your hypothesis to becoming accepted scientific theory.

A lot of works are involved in formulating falsifiable hypothesis, in testing and analyzing the test results. And even more works are involved in turning hypothesis into scientific theory.

And this is only an example of testing the hypothesis in laboratory environment, performing experiments. The alternative is going out there in the fields to find the evidences. Not every hypotheses can be tested in some labs.

Charles Darwin didn’t write his hypothesis until later; much, much later. He took samples and he recorded his observations during his voyage on HMS Beagle (1831-1836), from South America, Australia and a number of islands of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans. He compared his results with samples from museums and universities that he worked at during 1830s, 40s and 50s. He consulted and shared his observations with a number of fellow scientists on both biology and geology. He did all this, before he finally submitted manuscript On Origin of Species for publication in 1859.

Darwin’s scientific works on natural selection weren’t just intellectual conjecture with no substances. It involved years of hard works, of observing, comparing and writings, long before On Origin and later books that were published.

Here, it doesn’t require a lab, to find evidences.

 

[Audie]

No, that’s only half of the picture.

In science, a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable first.

Falsification determine if the any statement made in “the would be candidate for hypothesis” is capable of being tested.

If it is testable, then it is a hypothesis. If it isn’t, then it isn’t a hypothesis.

(A) Then, a scientist must “explain” WHAT the phenomena he is investigating “is”, HOW does it possibly work. And if he can possibly answer these two questions, then he should try to “predict” or “theorize” WHAT possible application(s) they may have?​

(B) This is followed by giving some predictions, some equations or formulas you expect any future experiment to meet. These predictions and equations/formulas are like baseline for determining possible success or failure of experiments.​

(C) The hypothesis should also include the methodology of you are going to perform the tests or experiments.​

All of this (A, B & C) are part of formulating and documenting the hypothesis. Once, scientist have done that, then he may proceed to the “testing” stage and “analyzing” stage of Scientific Method.

Let for the sake of simplicity, the tests involved “experimentation”. So you set up and perform the experiment, where you would record any observation, measure anything that contributed to hypothesis, and count or quantify what have been observed in the experiment.

Then you would the experiment again, and again, and again. The experiments need to be repeatedly performed as many times as required that you can analyze the test results and data (eg measurements recorded), for a number of reasons:

1. To determine if there are errors or anomalies in the experiments.
2. To determine one or two that are successful or failure are not fluke.
3. And the more experiments or tests done would provide confirmation if the hypothesis is probable or improbable.

If the experiments repeatedly failed because they don’t meet the requirements requirements you specified in the hypothesis, then you would know that your hypothesis has been refuted - the explanations and predictions are wrong. Your hypothesis is not probable. Any failed (or refuted) hypothesis should be discarded.

If, on the other hand, the majority of the experiments meet all the requirements you had specified in the hypothesis, eg the explanation, the predictions, the formulas/equations, etc, then there is a probability that your hypothesis is true and accurate.

This doesn’t mean the hypothesis is now a “scientific theory”. Writing up the hypothesis and performing some experiments, is only the first step in meeting the scientific method requirements.

You would perform more experiments or you would get independent scientist(s) to perform experiments, which would allow you to refine your hypothesis.

Should all goes well so far, then you can submit your documented hypothesis, and all your recorded test results and analysis before the Peer Review, or before the scientific community, to determine the candidacy of your hypothesis to becoming accepted scientific theory.

A lot of works are involved in formulating falsifiable hypothesis, in testing and analyzing the test results. And even more works are involved in turning hypothesis into scientific theory.

And this is only an example of testing the hypothesis in laboratory environment, performing experiments. The alternative is going out there in the fields to find the evidences. Not every hypotheses can be tested in some labs.

Charles Darwin didn’t write his hypothesis until later; much, much later. He took samples and he recorded his observations during his voyage on HMS Beagle (1831-1836), from South America, Australia and a number of islands of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans. He compared his results with samples from museums and universities that he worked at during 1830s, 40s and 50s. He consulted and shared his observations with a number of fellow scientists on both biology and geology. He did all this, before he finally submitted manuscript On Origin of Species for publication in 1859.

Darwin’s scientific works on natural selection weren’t just intellectual conjecture with no substances. It involved years of hard works, of observing, comparing and writings, long before On Origin and later books that were published.

Here, it doesn’t require a lab, to find evidences.

Oh, and it is not about what is true or false.

 

[BilliardsBall]

No, that’s only half of the picture.

In science, a hypothesis needs to be falsifiable first.

Falsification determine if the any statement made in “the would be candidate for hypothesis” is capable of being tested.

If it is testable, then it is a hypothesis. If it isn’t, then it isn’t a hypothesis.

(A) Then, a scientist must “explain” WHAT the phenomena he is investigating “is”, HOW does it possibly work. And if he can possibly answer these two questions, then he should try to “predict” or “theorize” WHAT possible application(s) they may have?​

(B) This is followed by giving some predictions, some equations or formulas you expect any future experiment to meet. These predictions and equations/formulas are like baseline for determining possible success or failure of experiments.​

(C) The hypothesis should also include the methodology of you are going to perform the tests or experiments.​

All of this (A, B & C) are part of formulating and documenting the hypothesis. Once, scientist have done that, then he may proceed to the “testing” stage and “analyzing” stage of Scientific Method.

Let for the sake of simplicity, the tests involved “experimentation”. So you set up and perform the experiment, where you would record any observation, measure anything that contributed to hypothesis, and count or quantify what have been observed in the experiment.

Then you would the experiment again, and again, and again. The experiments need to be repeatedly performed as many times as required that you can analyze the test results and data (eg measurements recorded), for a number of reasons:

1. To determine if there are errors or anomalies in the experiments.
2. To determine one or two that are successful or failure are not fluke.
3. And the more experiments or tests done would provide confirmation if the hypothesis is probable or improbable.

If the experiments repeatedly failed because they don’t meet the requirements requirements you specified in the hypothesis, then you would know that your hypothesis has been refuted - the explanations and predictions are wrong. Your hypothesis is not probable. Any failed (or refuted) hypothesis should be discarded.

If, on the other hand, the majority of the experiments meet all the requirements you had specified in the hypothesis, eg the explanation, the predictions, the formulas/equations, etc, then there is a probability that your hypothesis is true and accurate.

This doesn’t mean the hypothesis is now a “scientific theory”. Writing up the hypothesis and performing some experiments, is only the first step in meeting the scientific method requirements.

You would perform more experiments or you would get independent scientist(s) to perform experiments, which would allow you to refine your hypothesis.

Should all goes well so far, then you can submit your documented hypothesis, and all your recorded test results and analysis before the Peer Review, or before the scientific community, to determine the candidacy of your hypothesis to becoming accepted scientific theory.

A lot of works are involved in formulating falsifiable hypothesis, in testing and analyzing the test results. And even more works are involved in turning hypothesis into scientific theory.

And this is only an example of testing the hypothesis in laboratory environment, performing experiments. The alternative is going out there in the fields to find the evidences. Not every hypotheses can be tested in some labs.

Charles Darwin didn’t write his hypothesis until later; much, much later. He took samples and he recorded his observations during his voyage on HMS Beagle (1831-1836), from South America, Australia and a number of islands of the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans. He compared his results with samples from museums and universities that he worked at during 1830s, 40s and 50s. He consulted and shared his observations with a number of fellow scientists on both biology and geology. He did all this, before he finally submitted manuscript On Origin of Species for publication in 1859.

Darwin’s scientific works on natural selection weren’t just intellectual conjecture with no substances. It involved years of hard works, of observing, comparing and writings, long before On Origin and later books that were published.

Here, it doesn’t require a lab, to find evidences.

I appreciate the thoughtful response. That are certain falsifiable tests given in the Holy Bible that I've conducted, numerous times. I have exceeded all reasonable statistical probability in affirming again and again, for many years, the truths of the Bible, all of it.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Not at all unreasonable. But that something would most likely be atomic hydrogen and certainly NOT water at any density.

You understand this is outside the observable universe? There could be hydrogen, water, dark matter, pink unicorns, a vacuum...

 

[Polymath257]

You understand this is outside the observable universe? There could be hydrogen, water, dark matter, pink unicorns, a vacuum...

Yes, of course. But the mere hypothesis isn't justified unless testable. And the only way to test is via the laws of physics that apply in the observable universe and via extension. Those laws eliminate the possibility of water existing just outside of our universe in sufficient quantities to do what you ask.

As such, your hypothesis has no experimental, theoretical, or observational basis.

 

[gnostic]

I appreciate the thoughtful response. That are certain falsifiable tests given in the Holy Bible that I've conducted, numerous times. I have exceeded all reasonable statistical probability in affirming again and again, for many years, the truths of the Bible, all of it.

I don’t think you really what it mean by “falsifiable”.

Falsifiable come at two stages in the scientific method:

1. the formulation of the questions, and
2. the formulation of hypothesis.

Falsifiable isn’t about the actual tests themselves. Falsifiability or falsification itself don’t determine what is true or false. The only things that falsification determine is what statements or hypotheses are “testable” or “refutable”.

No, the questions of falsifiability, occurred before any testing (eg before the first experiment).

Falsifiable is about examining first the initial questions (the first stage of scientific method, the “formulation of question”).

The formulation of question (step 1), is where the ideas first start, and it start with the questions on preliminary observation of specific phenomena.

If that or those questions are falsifiable, meaning if you can “potentially” test the question, then the scientist can begin with the next step, the formulation of the hypothesis.

The formulation of hypothesis, I have already explained in my last reply to your post.

Hypothesis (the formulation of hypothesis) contained the following details:

1. Explanation of WHAT the phenomena and HOW does it work, based on more thorough observation than the one done in the formulation of question.
2. Some predictions and some mathematical statements (eg in the form of equations, formulas or metric constants), all of which are baseline for the testings (which is the next stage or step of the scientific method).
3. The hypothesis must also contain information on how you would set up and how you would proceed with testings.

Once, you come up with all the above details, then you would question this hypothesis, is it “falsifiable”? Can you still test the hypothesis?

If yes, then you will start the process of testing the hypothesis, through experiments, for example.

My points in all this, is that falsifiability occurred BEFORE any official testing start; falsification do NOT OCCUR DURING testing and certainly NOT AFTER testing.

A scientist have to examine if the question and hypothesis are falsifiable, first, before any test is performed.

If they are “not falsifiable”, then it would be impossible to perform any test.

When you you begin the next steps of scientific method, which is the testing and analyzing the test results, that’s what determine if the hypothesis is “probable” (true) or “not probable” (false).

Do you understand?

Falsifiable occurred first, before testing.

Falsifiable doesn’t determine what is true or false; falsification only determine the question, eg “Is my hypothesis testable?”

What is true or false occur AFTER testing, and the basis of what are considered true or false depends on the number of evidences and probability. Falsifiability of the hypothesis occurred BEFORE testing, not after.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes, of course. But the mere hypothesis isn't justified unless testable. And the only way to test is via the laws of physics that apply in the observable universe and via extension. Those laws eliminate the possibility of water existing just outside of our universe in sufficient quantities to do what you ask.

As such, your hypothesis has no experimental, theoretical, or observational basis.

The theoretical basis was:

1) Time dilation is proven
2) Time is relative, based on position in the observable universe
3) The Bible talks of waters moved during Creation
4) A physicist hypothesized an external source acting on the BB singularity expansion--waters in what can only be called massive quantity(s)

What is a shame, though, is your insistence on moot statements like "Those laws eliminate the possibility of water existing just outside of our universe in sufficient quantities to do what you ask," unless you'd care to demonstrate, so I can understand:

1) Proof one that physics demonstrates something/anything/nothing outside the observable universe:



2) Proof two that physics demonstrates something/anything/nothing outside the observable universe:



3) Proof three that physics demonstrates something/anything/nothing outside the observable universe:

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don’t think you really what it mean by “falsifiable”.

Falsifiable come at two stages in the scientific method:

1. the formulation of the questions, and
2. the formulation of hypothesis.

Falsifiable isn’t about the actual tests themselves. Falsifiability or falsification itself don’t determine what is true or false. The only things that falsification determine is what statements or hypotheses are “testable” or “refutable”.

No, the questions of falsifiability, occurred before any testing (eg before the first experiment).

Falsifiable is about examining first the initial questions (the first stage of scientific method, the “formulation of question”).

The formulation of question (step 1), is where the ideas first start, and it start with the questions on preliminary observation of specific phenomena.

If that or those questions are falsifiable, meaning if you can “potentially” test the question, then the scientist can begin with the next step, the formulation of the hypothesis.

The formulation of hypothesis, I have already explained in my last reply to your post.

Hypothesis (the formulation of hypothesis) contained the following details:

1. Explanation of WHAT the phenomena and HOW does it work, based on more thorough observation than the one done in the formulation of question.
2. Some predictions and some mathematical statements (eg in the form of equations, formulas or metric constants), all of which are baseline for the testings (which is the next stage or step of the scientific method).
3. The hypothesis must also contain information on how you would set up and how you would proceed with testings.

Once, you come up with all the above details, then you would question this hypothesis, is it “falsifiable”? Can you still test the hypothesis?

If yes, then you will start the process of testing the hypothesis, through experiments, for example.

My points in all this, is that falsifiability occurred BEFORE any official testing start; falsification do NOT OCCUR DURING testing and certainly NOT AFTER testing.

A scientist have to examine if the question and hypothesis are falsifiable, first, before any test is performed.

If they are “not falsifiable”, then it would be impossible to perform any test.

When you you begin the next steps of scientific method, which is the testing and analyzing the test results, that’s what determine if the hypothesis is “probable” (true) or “not probable” (false).

Do you understand?

Falsifiable occurred first, before testing.

Falsifiable doesn’t determine what is true or false; falsification only determine the question, eg “Is my hypothesis testable?”

What is true or false occur AFTER testing, and the basis of what are considered true or false depends on the number of evidences and probability. Falsifiability of the hypothesis occurred BEFORE testing, not after.

I believe you are misunderstanding my perspective. A simplified method, which we use often/constantly as people:

1) Assume X is true
2) Follow X as true to expect Y
3) See if Y is there

You can do this with metaphysics also. For example, "Was Hitler a loving person?"

1) Hitler was loving--he should have expressed this much loving externally
2) He cared for his dogs, not too much for people, even his followers and nation
3) The expected outcome is different, Hitler wasn't a loving person

We can/SHOULD do this with the Bible:
1) The Bible claims God IS truth and tells only truth in the Bible
2) We should find no false statements in the Bible if X leads to Y
3) The Bible makes numerous prophecies, recorded centuries/millennia before events
4) The prophecies are verified as truth outside the Bible in documents/archaeology/affirmed history, indeed, over 1,000 such prophecies are verified, by my count
5) Humans cannot predict the future with such accuracy, the Bible is true

 

[Polymath257]

The theoretical basis was:

1) Time dilation is proven

Yes.

2) Time is relative, based on position in the observable universe

Not just position. Also relative motion. And the dependence on position is only via the effects of the gravitational field.

3) The Bible talks of waters moved during Creation

OK, and other myths talk of other things. So?

4) A physicist hypothesized an external source acting on the BB singularity expansion--waters in what can only be called massive quantity(s)

This is wildly confused. In the BB scenario, it is impossible to even talk about 'outside the singularity'. So, the problem is even setting up a coordinate system where the 'singularity' makes sense AND an external source makes sense. Good luck.

Next, I would immediately question the qualifications of this person as a physicist. My guess is a diploma mill or a very, very poor dissertation.

Finally, and again, the whole set up makes no physical sense at all.

What is a shame, though, is your insistence on moot statements like "Those laws eliminate the possibility of water existing just outside of our universe in sufficient quantities to do what you ask," unless you'd care to demonstrate, so I can understand:

1) Proof one that physics demonstrates something/anything/nothing outside the observable universe:

Easy. If there were something outside of the observable universe and close to it, that would affect the dynamics of what we see. This is part of how we know that the observable universe is only a small part of the larger whole.

2) Proof two that physics demonstrates something/anything/nothing outside the observable universe:

3) Proof three that physics demonstrates something/anything/nothing outside the observable universe:

You are asking the same question three times?

We know that we see the light from distant galaxies that was emitted billions of years ago. Those galaxies have been moving away from us because of the expansion of the universe. So they are *now* much beyond the limits of the observable universe (we cannot see them yet because the light from them as they are now has not reached us yet).

This is rather trivial: yes we know there are galaxies outside of our observable universe. We see them how they were in the past, but *now* they are beyond that limit.

 

[ecco]

Last Thursdayism is the idea that the universe was created last Thursday, but with the physical appearance of being billions of years old. It's also a counter to the creationism theory. Under Last Thursdayism, books, fossils, light already on the way from distant stars, and literally everything(including your memories of the time before last Thursday) were all formed at the time of creation (last Thursday) in a state such that they appear much older.

I already provided an answer. I Will asume that my memories and experiences of a past life are accurate , unless proven to be wrong. That is the most reasonable position.

Sorry for the delay in responding, I lost track of this thread.

Read the definition again. It's really not very complicated.

We are not talking about memories of a past life. All your "memories" of things prior to Last Thursday were created when you were created.

 

[gnostic]

Sorry, @BilliardsBall, but I think Polymath257 is right, you are terribly confused:

The theoretical basis was:

1) Time dilation is proven
2) Time is relative, based on position in the observable universe
3) The Bible talks of waters moved during Creation
4) A physicist hypothesized an external source acting on the BB singularity expansion--waters in what can only be called massive quantity(s)

What is a shame, though, is your insistence on moot statements like "Those laws eliminate the possibility of water existing just outside of our universe in sufficient quantities to do what you ask," unless you'd care to demonstrate, so I can understand:

1) Proof one that physics demonstrates something/anything/nothing outside the observable universe:



2) Proof two that physics demonstrates something/anything/nothing outside the observable universe:



3) Proof three that physics demonstrates something/anything/nothing outside the observable universe:

I really don't you think understand the concept of the Big Bang, BB.

First off, the Big Bang mostly explain the universe cosmology from the earliest stage of the universe (known as the Planck Epoch) down to the present, of how the universe is still expanding and what are the probable causes for expansion.

So when astrophysicists looked at the universe, going back in time, they find that the universe was hotter and more denser, the further back time they go.

And what the BB theory explain (going backward in time), is how galaxies and stars formed first formed, then how the earliest matters from different subatomic particles, and how the earliest particles, and how the four fundamental interactions or forces separated. And for each of these stages, they explain in certain details, but at each stage, going backward, the universe was hotter and denser in the earlier epoch.

When astrophysicists reached the instance of initial start of the universe expansion, or the "Big Bang", they have hit the proverbial brick-wall and cannot explain further, OTHER THAN to say the universe's singularity is infinitely hot and infinitely dense, where the law of physics break down.

My point in all this, is that the BB cosmologists and astrophysicists, never speak of there being anything "outside the universe" or "outside the singularity". They simply don't know what happened before the Planck Epoch.

I think you are confusing the Big Bang with some other different cosmologies, that do speak of the "outside the universe", for instances:

1. the Oscillating Universe Model (also know by other names, like Cyclical Model or the Big Bounce, where universe underwent a series of birth, death, rebirth, and so on, meaning Bang (universe expanding), Crunch (universe contracting), Bang, etc, etc),
   
2. or the various versions of Multiverse model, which is currently quite popular,
3. or the Brane Cosmology (using String Theory and Superstring Theory).

These other models on cosmology, are all highly theoretical, using and attempting to solving large complex equations for their respective models. There are no observational evidences of any of these models.

In fact, there are no evidence that there is "outside the universe".

My point is that the Big Bang theory don't concern itself with anything being outside of the universe.

So your talk and claim of water being outside of the universe or being responsible for the Big Bang, have nothing to do with the Big Bang at all.

Second, another thing you don't understand is "water", especially in relation to your claim concerning the Big Bang and the singularity.

When people talk of water, particularly in science, they are commonly referred to water’s most basic chemical or molecular structure:

2 hydrogen atoms bonded to 1 oxygen atom, hence H2O​

Or heavy water, where the hydrogen atom is a isotope, have one neutron particle in the hydrogen nucleus. This hydrogen isotope is often expressed as hydrogen-2, or 2 superscripted before the letter H (I can’t do superscript at this forum), or as deuterium that can be expressed with the symbol "D". So heavy water can be expressed as a molecule D2O. Heavy water (D2O) do exist naturally, particularly in Earth’s oceans.
But regardless of what water type you are talking about, water required at least 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen, molecularly bonded together.

But you are bringing up the Big Bang, especially on your point 4 in your reply:

4) A physicist hypothesized an external source acting on the BB singularity expansion--waters in what can only be called massive quantity(s)

To cut long explanation short, before the earliest stars formed, there were only 3 elements existing in the young universe:

1. hydrogen,
   
2. helium
   
3. and lithium.

There were no oxygen, no carbon, no iron. Nothing heavier than lithium existed BEFORE the stars.

Heavier elements were created in one of the following ways:

1. Through Stellar Nucleosynthesis, known as CNO Cycle (Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen cycle), that occurred in stars 1.3 more massive than our Sun. (The Stellar Nucleosynthesis that occur in our Sun, is a nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms into a helium atom, otherwise known as proton-proton chain-reaction nucleosynthesis.)
2. When stars run out of hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium, and began fusing helium atoms into heavier elements, like carbon, oxygen, iron. This will turn a main sequence star into a "red giant" star, swelling in size, the sort of fate our Sun will go through, over 5 billion years from now. The red giant stars will begin to break the outer layers of the stars, sending debris of dust and heavier elements into space.
   
3. Another form of nucleosynthesis, is called Supernova Nucleosynthesis. When a massive star explode, it will enough heat and energy to fuse lighter elements into heavier elements, and sending these debris throughout local region of space.

There are other different types of nucheosynthesis, relating to the stars, but these are the 3 ways most common, to explain how carbon, oxygen and other heavier elements were formed from stars.

Water don't exist unless are oxygen to bond with hydrogen. And there were no oxygen (as well as no carbon and no iron) before the earliest stars.

So how can there be water if there are no oxygen?

As to outside of the universe, there are no evidences of outside the universe, and certainly no water existing before the universe, and certainly no water before the stars.

You stated "a physicist" claimed what you agree with? So is this physicist? And you claimed that you have "proof", so what are your sources, your proofs?

 

[gnostic]

I believe you are misunderstanding my perspective. A simplified method, which we use often/constantly as people:

1) Assume X is true
2) Follow X as true to expect Y
3) See if Y is there

You can do this with metaphysics also. For example, "Was Hitler a loving person?"

1) Hitler was loving--he should have expressed this much loving externally
2) He cared for his dogs, not too much for people, even his followers and nation
3) The expected outcome is different, Hitler wasn't a loving person

We can/SHOULD do this with the Bible:
1) The Bible claims God IS truth and tells only truth in the Bible
2) We should find no false statements in the Bible if X leads to Y
3) The Bible makes numerous prophecies, recorded centuries/millennia before events
4) The prophecies are verified as truth outside the Bible in documents/archaeology/affirmed history, indeed, over 1,000 such prophecies are verified, by my count
5) Humans cannot predict the future with such accuracy, the Bible is true

BilliardsBall, this thread is about Intelligent Design.

And the problem with Intelligent Design, is that it isn't science, as leroy had claimed in the OP.

As to your two examples, one on Hitler, and one on bible and belief in God plus archaeology, both examples have nothing to do with science. They are both merely examples based on faulty assumptions and your personal opinions which is also equally faulty.

Especially when you consider that neither Hitler nor the Bible/archaeology have anything to do with the Big Bang cosmology, nor the biology of either life origin or evolution of life, which the Intelligent Design adherents have tried to replace as teaching subjects in science classrooms.

Although I know that Intelligent Design is just a guise for the biblical creationism, creationists pretending to be not creationists, their ID concept do not touch on the subject of archaeology.

As to metaphysics is just one of many philosophies, and metaphysics isn't science. Like most philosophy, metaphysics is just rationalising, and all talk, no actions. Metaphysics don't actively seek evidences.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Yes.


Not just position. Also relative motion. And the dependence on position is only via the effects of the gravitational field.


OK, and other myths talk of other things. So?



This is wildly confused. In the BB scenario, it is impossible to even talk about 'outside the singularity'. So, the problem is even setting up a coordinate system where the 'singularity' makes sense AND an external source makes sense. Good luck.

Next, I would immediately question the qualifications of this person as a physicist. My guess is a diploma mill or a very, very poor dissertation.

Finally, and again, the whole set up makes no physical sense at all.



Easy. If there were something outside of the observable universe and close to it, that would affect the dynamics of what we see. This is part of how we know that the observable universe is only a small part of the larger whole.




You are asking the same question three times?

We know that we see the light from distant galaxies that was emitted billions of years ago. Those galaxies have been moving away from us because of the expansion of the universe. So they are *now* much beyond the limits of the observable universe (we cannot see them yet because the light from them as they are now has not reached us yet).

This is rather trivial: yes we know there are galaxies outside of our observable universe. We see them how they were in the past, but *now* they are beyond that limit.

I'm trying to conceive of the depth of your intellectual smugness, when you post snobbish things like "Easy. If there were something outside of the observable universe and close to it, that would affect the dynamics of what we see. This is part of how we know that the observable universe is only a small part of the larger whole."

Um--why do you think dark matter/dark energy are conjectured? To try to account for forces not measurable that are inductively observed by effect (like gravity). How can you be this closed minded? Why are you so closed minded?

 

[BilliardsBall]

BilliardsBall, this thread is about Intelligent Design.

And the problem with Intelligent Design, is that it isn't science, as leroy had claimed in the OP.

As to your two examples, one on Hitler, and one on bible and belief in God plus archaeology, both examples have nothing to do with science. They are both merely examples based on faulty assumptions and your personal opinions which is also equally faulty.

Especially when you consider that neither Hitler nor the Bible/archaeology have anything to do with the Big Bang cosmology, nor the biology of either life origin or evolution of life, which the Intelligent Design adherents have tried to replace as teaching subjects in science classrooms.

Although I know that Intelligent Design is just a guise for the biblical creationism, creationists pretending to be not creationists, their ID concept do not touch on the subject of archaeology.

As to metaphysics is just one of many philosophies, and metaphysics isn't science. Like most philosophy, metaphysics is just rationalising, and all talk, no actions. Metaphysics don't actively seek evidences.

I apologize for leaving the OP with my notes.

ID is science, and offers alternative hypotheses for yet-unsolved mysteries. For example, scientists spend millions on SETI, affirming that aliens both exist and are intelligent enough to decode SETI messaging.

We are on the verge of vast changes to species via genetic engineering. Do you believe it is impossible for aliens to have made life on Earth via ID? I thought you are an open-minded scientist.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Sorry, @BilliardsBall, but I think Polymath257 is right, you are terribly confused:



I really don't you think understand the concept of the Big Bang, BB.

First off, the Big Bang mostly explain the universe cosmology from the earliest stage of the universe (known as the Planck Epoch) down to the present, of how the universe is still expanding and what are the probable causes for expansion.

So when astrophysicists looked at the universe, going back in time, they find that the universe was hotter and more denser, the further back time they go.

And what the BB theory explain (going backward in time), is how galaxies and stars formed first formed, then how the earliest matters from different subatomic particles, and how the earliest particles, and how the four fundamental interactions or forces separated. And for each of these stages, they explain in certain details, but at each stage, going backward, the universe was hotter and denser in the earlier epoch.

When astrophysicists reached the instance of initial start of the universe expansion, or the "Big Bang", they have hit the proverbial brick-wall and cannot explain further, OTHER THAN to say the universe's singularity is infinitely hot and infinitely dense, where the law of physics break down.

My point in all this, is that the BB cosmologists and astrophysicists, never speak of there being anything "outside the universe" or "outside the singularity". They simply don't know what happened before the Planck Epoch.

I think you are confusing the Big Bang with some other different cosmologies, that do speak of the "outside the universe", for instances:

1. the Oscillating Universe Model (also know by other names, like Cyclical Model or the Big Bounce, where universe underwent a series of birth, death, rebirth, and so on, meaning Bang (universe expanding), Crunch (universe contracting), Bang, etc, etc),
   
2. or the various versions of Multiverse model, which is currently quite popular,
3. or the Brane Cosmology (using String Theory and Superstring Theory).

These other models on cosmology, are all highly theoretical, using and attempting to solving large complex equations for their respective models. There are no observational evidences of any of these models.

In fact, there are no evidence that there is "outside the universe".

My point is that the Big Bang theory don't concern itself with anything being outside of the universe.

So your talk and claim of water being outside of the universe or being responsible for the Big Bang, have nothing to do with the Big Bang at all.

Second, another thing you don't understand is "water", especially in relation to your claim concerning the Big Bang and the singularity.

When people talk of water, particularly in science, they are commonly referred to water’s most basic chemical or molecular structure:

2 hydrogen atoms bonded to 1 oxygen atom, hence H2O​

Or heavy water, where the hydrogen atom is a isotope, have one neutron particle in the hydrogen nucleus. This hydrogen isotope is often expressed as hydrogen-2, or 2 superscripted before the letter H (I can’t do superscript at this forum), or as deuterium that can be expressed with the symbol "D". So heavy water can be expressed as a molecule D2O. Heavy water (D2O) do exist naturally, particularly in Earth’s oceans.
But regardless of what water type you are talking about, water required at least 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen, molecularly bonded together.

But you are bringing up the Big Bang, especially on your point 4 in your reply:

​

To cut long explanation short, before the earliest stars formed, there were only 3 elements existing in the young universe:

1. hydrogen,
   
2. helium
   
3. and lithium.

There were no oxygen, no carbon, no iron. Nothing heavier than lithium existed BEFORE the stars.

Heavier elements were created in one of the following ways:

1. Through Stellar Nucleosynthesis, known as CNO Cycle (Carbon-Nitrogen-Oxygen cycle), that occurred in stars 1.3 more massive than our Sun. (The Stellar Nucleosynthesis that occur in our Sun, is a nuclear fusion of hydrogen atoms into a helium atom, otherwise known as proton-proton chain-reaction nucleosynthesis.)
2. When stars run out of hydrogen atoms to fuse into helium, and began fusing helium atoms into heavier elements, like carbon, oxygen, iron. This will turn a main sequence star into a "red giant" star, swelling in size, the sort of fate our Sun will go through, over 5 billion years from now. The red giant stars will begin to break the outer layers of the stars, sending debris of dust and heavier elements into space.
   
3. Another form of nucleosynthesis, is called Supernova Nucleosynthesis. When a massive star explode, it will enough heat and energy to fuse lighter elements into heavier elements, and sending these debris throughout local region of space.

There are other different types of nucheosynthesis, relating to the stars, but these are the 3 ways most common, to explain how carbon, oxygen and other heavier elements were formed from stars.

Water don't exist unless are oxygen to bond with hydrogen. And there were no oxygen (as well as no carbon and no iron) before the earliest stars.

So how can there be water if there are no oxygen?

As to outside of the universe, there are no evidences of outside the universe, and certainly no water existing before the universe, and certainly no water before the stars.

You stated "a physicist" claimed what you agree with? So is this physicist? And you claimed that you have "proof", so what are your sources, your proofs?

Why are we over-complicating the issues? I don't believe in oscillation or Steady State for two reasons:

1) Almost 100% of cosmologists are BB
2) Entropy and other obvious issues

What I do understand is that all matter is quantized energy, and that matter/energy cannot be destroyed or created, and that therefore there is a large, not small, problem with 1) infinite regression from where the BB singularity came from 2) scientists who are closed-minded and will not consider any possible externals/multiverses to begin to tackle this problem 3) scientists who affirm again and again, without physical or measurable evidence, that dark matter and dark energy MUST exist because SOMETHING is stretching space/operating gravity but NOTHING outside the universe CAN exist.